Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_5/V15NO530.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 31KB

Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 04:59:59
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #530
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri, 11 Dec 92       Volume 15 : Issue 530

Today's Topics:
              absolutely, positively overnight (2 msgs)
                                Aurora
                             Autorotation
                             DC-X status?
                         DC engines (2 msgs)
                           DC info (2 msgs)
                     Galileo Moon Image Available
   NASA has 5 hand grenades still on the moon from Apollo missions
              Nasa town meeting, mistaken attribution...
             NASA town meeting question wanted on SSTO's.
                           Orbit Question?
                             Pop in space
                   Scud Missile technology (2 msgs)
                 STS-48 and "SDI": Oberg vs. Hoagland
           Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
             Two-Line Orbital Element Set:  Space Shuttle
                   what the little bird told Henry

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1992 01:28:18 GMT
From: Josh 'K' Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: absolutely, positively overnight
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:

>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:

>>I know you had a smiley but I want to follow up anyway.  The big problem with
>>transoceanic flight is that it would be much to expensive (and besides the
>>jet lag would be awful :-).

>I believe you have that backwards.  My understanding is, the faster the
>flight, the less the jet lag.  As far as expense goes, have you priced
>the Concorde recently?

I'm no expert on jet lag.  It just seems like going from breakfast to a late
dinner in the time it takes to skim a good magazine would have to throw your
system off.  Since jet lag is way off the subject, let's take this to e-mail
if you have more to say.  On the subject of expense, the Concorde seems a
good example.  It's never been profitable enough to make anyone else want to
buy one and it's at least 1.5 orders of magnitude cheaper than I can see a DC
type vehicle being.  So where's the motivation for passenger travel?

--
Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]
                        Ho^3     !=L

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1992 02:01:02 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: absolutely, positively overnight
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>one stage.
>
>
>>The first Saturn I was test fired in 1959 and the first flight
>>of the bird was in 1963...
>
>The first Saturn I flew on 27 Oct 1961, actually.
>

So if the Saturn I  was ready in 61,  why didn't they use it for
Gemini?

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Dec 92 15:49:53 MET
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Aurora

Bob Waterman writes (8 Dec 92 22:19:48 EST):

>Thought Y'all might find this interesting (those financial guys
>always have the scoop.)
>
>From Wall Street Journal...
>
>Magazine Suggests Aircraft Has Flown Mach 8 for Years
> ... (too long, suppressed) ...

Very interesting indeed. Thanks for posting that article.
Now a few comments about this mysterious triangular aircraft:

1). In the article "Recent Sightings of XB-70-like Aircraft Reinforce
1990 Reports from Edwards Area", AW&ST (August 24, 1992) reports a few
sightings of what they assume to be a TSTO (Two Stages To Orbit) object.
The first sightings (1990-1991) were of a "primarily delta-shaped"
aircraft. Only in the two last sightings (1992) were reported a "narrow
fuselage" and/or a "forward wing or canard". Maybe these two last
sightings can be discarded (IMHO, all these sightings are no more
convincing than UFO sightings: just apply the CSICOP criteria to
these AW&ST articles...). If they can be discarded, then we are left
with reports of "triangular" aircrafts in the Wall Street Journal and
in the AW&ST article. My conclusion: maybe Aurora and the "XB-70-like"
aircraft are the same beast, in which case there is no TSTO, only a
hypersonic spy plane.

2). Unknown triangular crafts have been reported over Belgium in 1989-
1990-1991, and there have been more than a few sightings: something
like one thousand! On the only good photo which exists of this object,
it has a 82-degrees nose, not far from the 75-degrees reported in the
Wall Street Journal (I know, it depends on perspective). However, these
crafts could hover silently. Could Aurora go at Mach 8 and also hover
silently? Seems very unlikely. So the Belgian objects were probably
not Aurora, maybe just a hoax... but:

3). In its December 1991 issue, Popular Mechanics (article "America's
New Secret Aircraft") reports, near Edwards AFB, a big triangular object
which, like the Belgian object, can hover silently horizontally and
vertically... Hence the hypotheses:

a) The USA have really a extraordinary triangular plane, which can
both hover and reach Mach 8.

b) The USA have a triangular spy plane which goes at Mach 8, and a
triangular airship which looks like this plane. Maybe the airship
has been built just in order to confuse people.

c) Popular Mechanics and AW&ST are no more serious than UFO reviews.

J. Pharabod

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1992 06:55:57 GMT
From: "Hoyt A. Stearns jr." <isus!hoyt>
Subject: Autorotation
Newsgroups: sci.space

>
>[e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>>>4. Autorotation doesn't work worth a damn. The way I've heard it, if
>>>the engine goes out, maybe the pilot of the helicopter will get very
>>>lucky and be able to autorotate...
>>

A rotor blade has approximately the same lift in autorotation as a parachute
of the same diameter.  Similar to a parachute, in light-bladed
helicopters, there is an altitude below which transition to autorotation
can't be accomplished while climbing (100 feet or so)(decending, you're
already in autoration).

 Heavier bladed rotors have no such limitation.
In any case, the pilot has a few seconds to reduce
the collective pitch of the rotor after loss of power before RPM drops
too low.  I don't consider this a problem at all--when driving a car,
you have a similar time to hit the brakes if someone stops in front of you,
and you handle that quite well.  I feel much safer flying a helicopter
than a plane, as I know I can put it down on a spot with zero
speed in case of engine failure.

--
Hoyt A. Stearns jr.|hoyt@          | International Society of Unified Science|
4131 E. Cannon Dr. |isus.tnet.com -| Advancing Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal  |
Phoenix, AZ. 85028 |ncar!enuucp!   | System- a unified physical theory.      |
voice_602_996_1717 telesys!isus!hoyt The Universe in two postulates__________|

------------------------------

Date: 9 Dec 92 19:53:52 GMT
From: "Michael V. Kent" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X status?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rich Kolker) writes:

>In article <#[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael V. Kent) writes:

>>According to Bill Gaubatz, program manager for SSTO, DC-X is on schedule for
>>an 8:00 am launch on 23 April 1993.

>That's a good source so far as I'm concerned.  Is that the date for beginning
>hover / taxi testing.  It has been my understanding that DC-X will undergo
>a very typical new aircraft checkout (given it's an SSTO).

Yes, that is the date for the beginning of testing.  The tests should run
through August.  Like a new aircraft, they plan to start slowly and work
their way up to the flip maneuver.  There is also associated ground (turn-
around) testing, but I'm not sure of the specifics.

Please note that this is just the experimental vehicle (hence the "X").  It
will gain an altitude of no more than 30,000 ft.  The DC-Y, if built, will
be a prototype (hence the "Y") of an SSTO.  They are still a long way from
an operational spacecraft, and a lot of work needs to be done.  Even then,
it may not work.

Mike

--
Michael Kent                                   [e-mail]
Flight Test Engineer                           Tute-Screwed Aero '92
McDonnell Douglas                              Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
These views are solely those of the author.    Apple II Forever !!

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1992 21:11:23 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC engines
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>Yes, they are basically a *new* design despite being based on the
>proven RL-10. Adding throttleability to a rocket engine isn't simply
>a matter of adding a valve...

However, note that the throttlable RL10 is *not* a new development for
DC-X.  It's been around for some time.  It hasn't actually flown, that
I know of, but it was developed under an earlier contract of some kind.

Note also that it's not perceived as a particularly high-risk engine.
Griffin's FLO return-to-the-Moon strawman hardware design used throttlable
RL10s in its (man-rated) descent stage.

>... The variable geometry
>expander has never been tried on an operating rocket engine before
>either. It *should* work, but they won't know until they try it...

Here I'm less sure, but I believe these things *have* been tried on the
test stands before.
--
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 10 Dec 92 02:07:48 GMT
From: Josh 'K' Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC engines
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

[Responding to someone who's attribution is lost (Gary?)]

>>... The variable geometry
>>expander has never been tried on an operating rocket engine before
>>either. It *should* work, but they won't know until they try it...

>Here I'm less sure, but I believe these things *have* been tried on the
>test stands before.

Yeah, I'm positive I've seen photos of test stand firings but I can't for the
life of me remember where. I think it was something European.
--
Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]
                        Ho^3     !=L

------------------------------

Date: 9 Dec 92 21:39:10 GMT
From: "Michael F. Santangelo" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC info
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

>Here's a summary of some interesting pieces of paper a little bird delivered
>to me a while ago, concerning the DC-X/Y program.  [And no, before you ask,

...stuff deleted...

>Proposed DC engine.  LOX/LH2, expander cycle, throttlable, two-position
>telescoping nozzle, using mostly-existing experimental turbomachinery.
>Existing RL10 becomes RL10-A5 for DC-X, reusable with throttling.
>Component work on RL200 starts mid-93, produces RL200-X' (no throttling
>and some simplification) for testing in mid-94.  Mid-95, DC-X':  a
>reusable suborbital test vehicle, with one RL200-X' and eight RL10-A5s.
>[DC-X' seems meant as a replacement for SDIO's sounding-rocket program.]
>RL200-Y with throttling and improvements runs early 96, supporting
>DC-Y orbital flight tests late in 96 with eight RL200-Ys (four booster
>without telescoping nozzle, four sustainer with the nozzle).  Ultimately,
>the RL200-1 is committed to production in early 97 for first flights
>of DC-1 in late 98.

Henry (and/or Allen),
  I'm real foggy from this description as to what the RL200 engine is
going to be.  Is it a name for many RL10-A5's grouped together through
a common master nozzle of some form?  Or is it a seperate engine system
used to augment the RL10-A5's on the latter DC systems during flight...?
If you know (and can say), please forward this info onto the net.
  Thanks.
--
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Michael F. Santangelo                 + Internet: [e-mail]
Computer & Network Systems Director   +           [e-mail]
UMCEES / CBL (Solomons Island)        + BITNET:   MIKE@UMUC
University of Maryland                + Voice:    [phone] (direct)
                                      +           [phone] x237

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Dec 92 09:14:37 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC info

-From: [e-mail] (Henry Spencer)
-Subject: DC info
-Date: 9 Dec 92 16:22:36 GMT

Many thanks for a highly informative post. Much of this hasn't been seen
previously on sci.space.

-DC-X schedule.  Vehicle assembled and shipped early Feb 1993 for a static
-firing at White Sands, followed by readiness review in early April and
-first flight April 23.

A static test sounds like a good idea. Would that include "full throttle"?
And do the operational plans for DC call for a system like that used
by the Russian spacecraft and the Saturn V, in which the spacecraft is
held down until thrust is sufficient for launch?

-DC-X flies autonomously, not piloted from ground.  Ground monitors system
-performance, initiates thrust termination

Interesting approach. I suppose one motivation is to reduce the risk from
communications problems.

A question - since it's an experimental design, will the DC-X have landing
gear sturdy enough to support its weight fully fueled, or will it have to
hover before landing on abort like the DC-1 is projected to do? And if a
DC-X / DC-Y / DC-1 does for some reason land fully fueled, would the
spacecraft likely be destroyed, or would it just "crunch" the tail end
a little? If the latter, what would be the expected magnitude of the
repairs required?

-and parachute deployment in
-case of trouble.

So the DC-X, at least, will have a parachute. That adds another abort mode
for near-ground problems: blast straight up, gaining altitude and reducing
weight, *then* deploy the parachute.

John Roberts
[e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 10 Dec 92 07:13:10 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo Moon Image Available
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

                          =======================
                             GALILEO MOON IMAGE
                              December 9, 1992
                          =======================

     A Galileo image of the north pole of the Moon has been released and
is now available in GIF format (GIF89a).  The image was scanned
in from a photograph, and is not the raw data.  The caption file
accompanying the image is attached below, and it is also embedded
in the image.  The Galileo image is available using anonymous ftp to:

        ftp:      ames.arc.nasa.gov (128.102.18.3)
        user:     anonymous
        cd:       pub/SPACE/GIF
        files:
                  moonpole.gif
                  moonpole.txt   (caption file)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
moonpole.txt

PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF.  91109.  TELEPHONE [phone]

PHOTO CAPTION                   (TOP)                P-41432
GLL-EM14
December 9, 1992

This view of the north polar region of the Moon was obtained by
Galileo's camera during the spacecraft's flyby of the Earth-Moon
system on December 7 and 8, 1992.  The north pole is to the lower
right of the image.  The view in the upper left is toward the
horizon across the volcanic lava plains of Mare Imbrium.  The
prominent crater with the central peak is Pythagoras, an impact
crater some 130 kilometers (80 miles) in diameter.  The image was
taken at a distance of 121,000 kilometers (75,000 miles) from the
Moon throught the violet filter of Galileo's imaging system.
According to the team scientists, the viewing geometry provided by
the spacecraft's pass over the north pole and the low sun-angle
illumination provide a unique opportunity to assess the geologic
relationships among the smooth plains, cratered terrain and
impact ejecta deposits in this region of the Moon.  JPL manages
the Galileo Project for NASA's Office of Space Science and
Applications.
                             # # # # #
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The 3 things that children
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | find the most fascinating:
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | space, dinosaurs and ghosts.

------------------------------

Date: 9 Dec 92 15:43:09 GMT
From: Patrick Chester <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA has 5 hand grenades still on the moon from Apollo missions
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
]I was listening to the radio this morning when the announcer
]stated "The most expensive junk yard is out-of-this world".  He
]went on to say that NASA has over $500 million of salvageable
]junk up on the moon.  Among the items listed were golf balls,
]color TV sets, flags, and 5 hand grenades.

How can such mundane items cost 500 million dollars? Is that including
transport costs?

]
]What are 5 hand grenades doing on the moon and why would NASA
]send them up with the astronauts???

Obviously, they were part of the weapons brought by the astronauts to the
moon during their MILITARY COMMANDO mission to destroy the Russian's base.
You know, the one with the NEUTRAL PARTICLE BEAM WEAPONS that are powerful
enough to cause tidal waves in the Indian Ocean? Well, I'm surprised McElwaine
hasn't picked up on that as "proof" of some of his claims. But then, he isn't
very creative considering that he hasn't printed anything new in a long time.

Note Below:
:):):):):):):):):):):):)

(I don't want people thinking I'm as schizo'd as McElwaine)

]Inquiring mines want to know...

...If you can't remember, the claymore is pointed in your direction. :)




--
Patrick Chester            |----------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] |"The earth is too fragile a basket in which to keep
Politically Incorrect      |  all your eggs." Robert A. Heinlein
Future Lunar Colonist      |"The meek can *have* the Earth. The rest of us are
#^%$!! Militarist          |  going to the stars." Robert A. Heinlein
(Of the Sun Tzu mentality) |----------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 9 Dec 92 23:14:25 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Nasa town meeting, mistaken attribution...
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] ("Phil G. Fraering") writes:
> \top two issues in my mind...) (and yes, I read the text of Phil Phaerings
> /question at another meeting, but I feel that these issues need to be heard by
> \these guys at EVERY meeting they hold, EVERYWHERE they go.)  And at the same
>
> That was a mistaken attribution; you're thinking of Bill Higgins.
>
Yes, I found out when >HE< corrected me.  I publicly apologize.
(And yes, I apologize for spelling your name wrong too.)

    John.

(But I'm still looking for suggestions...)

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1992 21:03:48 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA town meeting question wanted on SSTO's.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>OR:  What is the BEST SSTO question that can be asked of NASA?

Answer: None at all.

If NASA takes an active interest in SSTO, it will either a) seek
to derail it, as a non-NASA project that encrouches on NASA's
turf, or b) try to take it over (which would doom the project
just as surely as outright cancellation).



------------------------------

Date: 10 Dec 92 03:43:03 GMT
From: Philip Young <[e-mail]>
Subject: Orbit Question?
Newsgroups: sci.space

 (Alan Carter) writes:
|> |> |> Your polar geosyncronous satellite takes out one equatorial geosynchronous
|> |> |> satellite every 24 hours as it passes over the equator at 24,000 miles
|> |> |> altitude.....
|> |>
|> |> If you have enough muscle to counteract the rebound, you should be able
|> |> to  collect one every 12 hours (probability proportional to satellite
|> |> density in GEO).
|>
|> Er... Won't it just take out a *maximum* of 2, and in future fly through
|> the holes it's made?
|>
|>    Alan

Orbital precession might allow you to get them all eventually.

--
Philip R. Young
Data General Australia Pty. Ltd.


------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1992 01:06:24 GMT
From: Josh 'K' Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pop in space
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:

>Coke thought the advertising justified the
>R&D money. Pepsi heard about it, and talked NASA into also sending up
>a Pepsi dispenser (something about government agencies not endorsing
>a particualr product...) Pepsi put almost no money into R&D of their
>dispenser, but (since almost no one remembers who won the taste test)
>got about the same publicity as Coke.

I believe one of our astronaut grads (Dale Gardner maybe?) was on the flight
in which the cola wars took to the new high ground.  He was probably
intentionaly not endorsing one over the other when I heard him discuss it, but
his answer was fairly conclusive.  The galley apparently lacks a fridge, so when
faced with warm zero-g soda the crew didn't really like either of the choices.

--
Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]
                        Ho^3     !=L

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1992 14:44:25 GMT
From: Dennis Newkirk <[e-mail]>
Subject: Scud Missile technology
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>I have yet to uncover exactly what a Scud missile is.
>
>I know what it does. I know that its NATO derivation (SS-1A) is similar to the
>earliest Soviet missile, the SS-1 - a V-2 derivative - but the Scud is in no
>way a dervivative of the SS-1.
>
>Is the Scud a liquid fuel missile? Is it a solid? If liquid, what fuels does
>it use? What is its engine designation? What design bureau created its engine?
>What is its specific impulse?
>--- Maximus 2.00

From the: Nuclear Weapons Databook Vol. 3, Soviet Nuclear
Weapons, by Cochran, Arkin, Norris and Sands, Harper & Row Pub. 1989.

Scud B was developed from the Scud A (which decended from the V-2) in
1965.  By 1977 all Scud A's were retired.  The Scud C was developed
with a longer range and smaller CEP but was not deployed by the
Russians.

Scud B Specs: 11.5 m by 84-90 cm., weight 6370 kg., storable liquid
propellants, inertial guidance, range 280-300 km, nuclear-chemical-
HE warheads at 770-860 kg, launchers based on JS-3 tank and MAZ-543
truck, 620 deployed as of 1987, prelaunch preparation time 2-4 hours,
CEP 930 m, Scud brigades consist of 3 battalions with 4-6 launchers
each and some reload capability. Scud B was to be replaced by SS-23.

[As for engine type I have don't have that info on hand but you might
try David Bakers "The Rocket".  My guess as to the missile builder would be
the TsSKB (Central Specialized Design Bureau) for the Scud A (SS-1b), but
I bet they moved the work elsewhere for the Scud B (SS-1c) because
around 1965 the TsSKB would have been very busy supporting the space
program.]

Dennis Newkirk ([e-mail])
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1992 11:42:00 -0500
From: Lawrence Curcio <[e-mail]>
Subject: Scud Missile technology
Newsgroups: sci.space

Coincidentally, I roomed last year with a Russian Ph.D. physics student
who was in the missile defense command in the army. He claims to have
worked on one of the earlier scuds. He mentioned UDMH and either RFNA of
N2O4, I forget which. I'm active im model rocketry, myself, and he
caught me reviewing nozzle flow one evening. He couldn't believe that
someone would learn this stuff, which he had been forced to study, for
enjoyment.

Anyway, the most amusing part was that he claimed the missile was
programmed through the medium of *paper tape*. It's amazing they got any
of those things off the ground :)

------------------------------

Date: 9 Dec 92 23:13:34 GMT
From: Robert McGrath <[e-mail]>
Subject: STS-48 and "SDI": Oberg vs. Hoagland
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.astro,sci.space,alt.alien.visitors

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
|> James Oberg will _of course_ have an explanation.  He is a member of
|> PSICOP and works with Philip Klass, THE well-known skeptic "nothing-
|> is-real" other famous member of PSICOP.  I've been seeing more and
|> more things from Oberg lately, and I *never* see this connection
|> mentioned, only his NASA ties.
|>
|> Robert Sheaffer may be "Skepticus Maximus", but for the rest of us
|> with open minds, please consider the source.
|>
|> Barb

What makes YOU so sure they are wrong?

And while you're playing guilt by association games, please disclose
all groups you belong to, are associated with, and think highly of.
And please submit the names and associations of all your friends and
everybody who agrees with you.

By the way, and for your information, Oberg and Klass and Shaeffer
would probably not endorse the claim "nothing-is-real".  The UFO
phenomenon is REAL, all right.  It just doesn't have anything to
do with aliens or other paranormal phenomenon.

--
  Robert E. McGrath (who has also been seen in the same room with Phil Klass)
  Urbana Illinois
  [e-mail]

(You'd probably even like Phil Klass if you met him, Barb.  :-))

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1992 01:45:32 GMT
From: Josh 'K' Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

>I support the DC-X tests. The data developed may be useful in later
>vehicles and the cost is not excessive. Like the X-15, however, I
>doubt it's design will scale to commercial products. How many airliners
>are derived from the X-15? The SR71 is the only manned vehicle that vaguely
>resembles the X-15 and it's flight systems are entirely different. And
>it's being retired as not cost effective for it's mission.

Actually, I think shuttle derived a fair amount of value from the X-15 research
even if it doesn't look the same.  In addition saying that the SR-71 is being
shut down for cost reasons it probably innacurate at definately speculative.
There is very strong evidence that spysats aren't the only assests being used
to fulfill the SR-71 mission.  Until you have costing data for the replacement
please don't state such things as facts.

[Stuff on Pegasus accidentaly deleted]

Pegasus is a new system whose costs OSC plans to drop. I don't think it merits
a 50% success rate either given that the second mission was not a complete
failure to my knowledge.
--
Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]
                        Ho^3     !=L

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1992 23:04:53 GMT
From: TS Kelso <[e-mail]>
Subject: Two-Line Orbital Element Set:  Space Shuttle
Newsgroups: sci.space

The most current orbital elements from the NORAD two-line element sets are
carried on the Celestial BBS, [phone], and are updated daily (when
possible).  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current
elements for the current shuttle mission are provided below.  The Celestial
BBS may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, 2400, 4800, or 9600 bps using
8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

Element sets (also updated daily), shuttle elements, and some documentation
and software are also available via anonymous ftp from archive.afit.af.mil
(129.92.1.66) in the directory pub/space.

STS 53
1 22259U 92 86  A 92344.09236111  .00818315  00000-0  32600-2 0   181
2 22259  56.9987 143.1452 0002842 287.0705 165.4967 15.84107931  1032
--
Dr TS Kelso                           Assistant Professor of Space Operations
[e-mail]                    Air Force Institute of Technology

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1992 21:15:00 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: what the little bird told Henry
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ("Phil G. Fraering") writes:
>Hmm... every report that seems to come out says that the reason it's possible
>now is because of the NASP materials research.

Well, there are people who would dispute that, actually.  Just how much of
the NASP materials work was actually essential to the DC design is not at
all clear; I've heard "none".  Note that most of the materials are in use
on existing projects of one kind or another already.

>BUT: if the main place where NASP materials seem to be being used is
>the heat shielding, and its re-entry temperature is lower than the
>shuttle's, wouldn't shuttle re-entry materials be just as useful?

They'd probably work as well, but there is a durability problem.  Having
to inspect every last damned tile is the last thing you want to do for a
vehicle that's supposed to have rapid turnaround.
--
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

------------------------------

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 530
------------------------------